AIRA Airborne Infrared Analyzer

ERB2 Stereoscopic 3D video camera

HIBRIS Broadband Imaging Spectrometer

HyperScout Intelligent hyperspectral imager

NightPOD Photographic tracking systems

OPS Optical Proximity Sensor

SILAT Stereoscopic Imager and Laser Altimeter

Virsi S Visible Near-Infrared Spectral Imager

IRIS Hyperspectral imager Laser altimeter

HSI hyperspectral imaging systems

IMET Industrial measurement systems

PDS Particle detection system

MPS Radiation detection system

RSS Remote Sensing Simulator

XRT High-energy optics simulation

CONDI optical inspection systems

Development of a measurement method

Production of analysis software and data storage systems

Miniaturised instruments for remote sensing

Read more about cosine in the Food & Pharma market

Non-destructive quality & safety screening

Detection of features not visible to the human eye

Ultimate Responsive WordPress Theme

cosine develops and builds measurement systems for its customers. These find use in scientific, industrial, medical, environmental, energy, agri/food, security, semiconductor and space applications, with customers ranging from small high-tech companies to the European Space Agency, IBM and EADS.

The cosine team consists of 40 highly educated people who develop transparently in close collaboration with the customer. With its broad experience in different technological areas they provide innovative, out-of-the-box measurement solutions. Technologies span the field of applied physics, with extensive experience in spectroscopy, lasers, radiation and 3D imaging systems.

As the projected launch date of HyperScout, now scheduled for 2 February 2018, approaches, ESA posted an article on HyperScout on their website. In this article, Marco Esposito, cosines remote sensing business unit manager, is quoted as follows: HyperScout is []

cosine daughter 3D-One acquired by Entner Electronics

Entner Electronics is to acquire cosine daughter 3D-ONE. cosine and Entner consider this a logical next step, based on a long standing and fruitful working relationship. Following pleasant talks between the management of cosine and Entner, an agreement was reached []

cosine daughter 3D-One acquired by Entner Electronics

cosine attends 68th International Astronautical Congress

cosine SPO featured in ARCUS proposal selected by NASA

cosine measurement systems – Oosteinde 36, 2361 HE Warmond – The Netherlands

325 F 3d 1306 – Moba Bv Bv Fps v Diamond Automation Inc

MOBA, B.V., Staalkat, B.V., and FPS Food Processing Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants,

DIAMOND AUTOMATION, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jon A. Baughman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, argued for plaintiffs-cross appellants. With him on the brief were Erik N. Videlock and Nicole D. Galli. Of counsel on the brief were Marvin Petry and Linda R. Poteate, Larson & Taylor, of Alexandria, VA.

Albert J. Breneisen, Kenyon & Kenyon, of New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were John W. Bateman and Sheila Mortazavi.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judges RADER, and BRYSON.

At trial, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that Moba, B.V., Staalkat, B.V., and FPS Food Processing Systems, Inc. (collectively FPS) did not infringe patents assigned to Diamond Automation, Inc. (Diamond).See Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc.,No. 95-CV-2631, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15483, at *43, 2000 WL 1521621 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 29, 2000). In response to a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), the district court correctly discerned that substantial evidence supports the jurys verdict that machines sold by FPS and used by its customers do not practice the method of United States Patent No. 4,519,494 (494 patent). However, no reasonable jury could find that machines sold by FPS and used by its customers do not practice the method of United States Patent No. 4,519,505 (505 patent). Thus, this court affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and remands for a determination of damages.

Diamond is a Michigan corporation that manufactures and sells high-speed egg processing machines to sort batches of eggs into different categories by weight and quality. Diamond developed these machines during the early 1980s with technology that significantly increased the processing speed for eggs. Diamond obtained various patents covering aspects of that technology, including the 494 and 505 patents, and United States Patent Nos. 4,569,444 (444 patent) and 4,505,373 (373 patent). While Diamond asserted all of these patents at trial, only the 505 and 494 patents appear in this appeal. The 505 patent relates generally to front end processing of eggs, while the 494 patent relates generally to back end processing of eggs.

The front end process first washes the eggs, then introduces them into a candling station where a high intensity light source checks the eggs for defects such as blood spots or cracks. The process then weighs the eggs. A computer stores this information for use in sorting the eggs at a later point. Figure 2 of the 505 patent illustrates an embodiment of the invention designed to weigh eggs and to lift them to an overhead conveyor. NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

Claim 24 of the 505 patent corresponds generally to the subject matter of Fig. 2:

24. A method for advancing a plurality of rows of eggs from a candling station through a plurality of weighing stations in an egg grading apparatus, comprising,

conveying eggs from said candling station to elongated guide means disposed adjacent to said candling station,

continuously advancing said eggs on said guide means through said weighing stations,

simultaneously with said step of advancing, weighing said eggs at said weighing stations,

guiding said eggs from said weighing stations first to a plurality of egg holding stations located downstream of said guide means and then to a plurality of locations longitudinally spaced-apart from and substantially horizontally co-planar with said holding stations,

guiding further eggs to said plurality of holding stations,and lifting said eggs simultaneously from said holding stations and said plurality of longitudinally spaced-apart locations.

505 patent, col. 13, ll. 33-54 (emphasis added).

The back end process receives eggs from front end processing and transfers them to an overhead conveyor. This conveyor carries the eggs in rows until dropping off each individual egg at a different receiving station based on the information in the computer. At each station, the eggs are either packaged or discarded. Figure 8 of the 494 patent illustrates an embodiment of the invention designed to receive eggs from an overhead conveyor for transport to a packer:


Claim 28 of the 494 patent corresponds generally to the subject matter of Fig. 8:

28. A method of transferring eggs delivered in spaced-apart aligned relationship by a first conveyor means to a receiving station, comprising the steps of,

delivering eggs to said receiving station in parallel spaced apart rows on said first conveyor means,

releasing eggs from said first conveyor means at the receiving station in accordance with a predetermined requirement,

positioning a receiving means below the first conveyor means so as to receive therein and deliver to a common member the eggs released from the parallel spaced-apart rows of the first conveyor means,

receiving said eggs in the receiving means disposed at said receiving station whereby the released eggs from both said parallel spaced apart rows of eggs fall on and are received by said receiving means,

rotating the receiving means downwardly and away from said first conveyor means to urge the received eggs downwardly,

guiding said eggs received in said receiving means downwardly and away from said receiving means, and

conveying said eggs away from said receiving means on second conveyor means,

said step of releasing comprising releasing said eggs successively from said first conveyor means at said receiving station along the length of said receiving means, and said step of conveying comprising conveying said eggs individually in rows away from said receiving means on said second conveyor means.

F494 patent, col. 12, ll. 9-40 (emphasis added).

Moba, B.V., and Staalkat, B.V., are Dutch companies that also manufacture and sell high-speed egg processing machines, such as the Moba Omnia and the Staalkat Selecta. FPS Food Processing, a Pennsylvania corporation, sells Mobas and Staalkats egg processing machines in the United States. In the United States market, FPS and Diamond are the only significant competitors in the manufacture and sale of high-speed egg processing machines.

In 1994, Diamond filed a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against FPS. The district court dismissed that case for lack of personal jurisdiction. In 1995, FPS filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking a declaratory judgment that the 444, 494, 373, and 505 patents are invalid and not infringed by the Moba Omnia and the Staalkat Selecta. Diamond filed a declaratory judgment counterclaim that the patents are valid and infringed. After discovery, the district court construed the patent claims. Then a jury heard the case from January 28, 2000 to February 25, 2000. On February 22, 2000, before the jury retired to consider its verdict, Diamond moved for entry of JMOL under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that FPS infringed and induced infringement of the four patents. In its February 25, 2000 verdict, the jury found that those patents were not invalid and not infringed. On March 6, 2000, the district court denied Diamonds February 22, 2000 JMOL motion, and entered judgment in favor of Diamond on the validity issues and in favor of FPS on the infringement issues. Diamond renewed its motion for JMOL regarding infringement, which the district court again denied.

Diamond argues that claim 24 of the 505 patent and claim 28 of the 494 patent cover methods used in both the Moba Omnia and the Staalkat Selecta. Diamond also contends that FPS has induced its
customers to infringe those claims by selling them the Moba Omnia and the Staalkat Selecta and by training them to use those machines. Diamond appeals, therefore, the district courts denial of JMOL on these issues. FPS cross-appeals the jurys determination that claim 24 of the 505 patent and claim 28 of the 494 patent are not invalid. Because Diamond no longer pursues any claims arising from the 444 or 373 patents, or claim 34 of the 494 patent, this court need not address those questions. This court has jurisdiction over the present appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1) (2000).

This court reviews claim construction without deference.Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,138 F.3d 1448, 1454, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1172 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc). This court accords substantial deference to a jurys factual application of a claim construction to the accused device in an infringement determination.Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Engg Corp.,216 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 55 USPQ2d 1161, 1164 (Fed.Cir.2000).

This court reviews a district courts denial of JMOL without deference, reversing only if substantial evidence does not support a jurys factual findings or if the law cannot support the legal conclusions underpinning the jurys factual findings.Cybor Corp.,138 F.3d at 1454. A district court may overturn a jurys verdict only if upon the record before the jury, reasonable jurors could not have reached that verdict.LNP Engg Plastics, Inc. v. MillerWaste Mills, Inc.,275 F.3d 1347, 1353, 61 USPQ2d 1193, 1197 (Fed.Cir.2001).

Claim language defines claim scope.SRI Intl v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.,775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 586 (Fed. Cir.1985) (en banc). As a general rule, claim language is given the ordinary meaning of the words in the normal usage of the field of the invention.Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus.,199 F.3d 1295, 1299, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (Fed.Cir.1999). Nevertheless, the inventor may act as his own lexicographer and use the specification to supply new meanings for terms either explicitly or by implication.Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,52 F.3d 967, 979, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc),affd,517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577, 38 USPQ2d 1461 (1996). Thus, to help determine the proper construction of a patent claim, a construing court consults the written description, and, if in evidence, the prosecution 979-80.

After claim construction, the fact finder compares the properly construed claim with the allegedly infringing devices.Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co.,208 F.3d 1352, 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2000). Infringement requires the patentee to show that the accused device contains or performs each limitation of the asserted claim,Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc.,156 F.3d 1206, 1211, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1014-15 (Fed.Cir.1998), or an equivalent of each limitation not satisfied literally,Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.,520 U.S. 17, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997). The sale or manufacture of equipment to perform a claimed method is not direct infringement within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 271(a).Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc.,5 F.3d 1557, 1579, 28 USPQ2d 1081, 1100 (Fed.Cir.1993).

In this case, the record shows that FPSs customers use the method of the Moba Omnia to process eggs in the United States. Hence, to show infringement Diamond needs only to prove that the Moba Omnia performs the method of claim 24 when it processes eggs.

Based upon its claim construction, the district court instructed the jury, in relevant part, that the guiding steps of claim 24 are defined as follows: (1) Carrying eggs to holding stations; (2) Carrying eggs from the holding stations to the spaced apart location; and (3) Carrying more eggs to the holding stations. At trial, Diamond did not object to either the district courts construction of guiding steps or to the jury instructions about that term. Following the jury verdict of non-infringement, the district court denied Diamonds JMOL motion. In its denial, the district court acknowledged that its interpretation of guiding steps left undetermined whether the claim requires sequential performance of the steps. Then the trial court reasoned that the jury reasonably could have determined from the testimony presented that sequential performance is a necessary characteristic of the guiding steps. The district courts instructions to the jury did not require sequential performance. In essence, the district court allowed the jury to add an additional limitation to the district courts construction of guiding steps. In this, the district court erred. Claim construction is a question of law and is not the province of the jury.Markman,52 F.3d at 979.

This error takes on significance in this appeal because the jury found that the Moba Omnia does not infringe. The record before us discloses no alternative basis upon which a reasonable jury could find that the Moba Omnia does not infringe, other than that the Moba Omnia does not satisfy the guiding steps limitation. Thus, by allowing the jury to import an additional limitation into the claims, the district court fundamentally altered the verdict.

Because Diamond did not object to the district courts claim construction or instructions to the jury, FPS contends that Diamond has waived its right to argue the interpretation of guiding steps on appeal. The doctrine of waiver as applied to claim construction prevents a party from offering a new claim construction on appeal.Interactive Gift Express v. Compuserve Inc.,256 F.3d 1323, 1346, 59 USPQ2d 1401, 1418 (Fed.Cir.2001). Moreover, a partys objection to a jury instruction is waived unless that party objects to the instruction before the jury retires to consider the verdict. Fed.R.Civ.P. 51. In this case, however, waiver does not bar Diamonds argument. Diamond does not now contest the district courts instruction to the jury on the meaning of guiding steps. Essentially Diamond does not wish to alter the district courts claim construction on appeal, but seeks enforcement of the trial courts claim construction.

Diamond has argued consistently, in its JMOL motions and in its argument on appeal here, that [n]either the language of the claim itself nor the Courts order defining this language requires that the `guiding steps occur separately. Thus, Diamond has consistently protested the error that this court currently reviews on appeal. Thus, this court will not apply waiver to prevent Diamond from protecting the original breadth of the binding claim construction presented by the district court to the jury frompost factoimposition of an additional limitation.Interactive Gift Express,256 F.3d at 1346. Application of waiver in this case would essentially render unreviewable the district courts error. In sum, Diamond has not waived its argument that the guiding steps may be performed simultaneously.

Nowhere does the plain language of claim 24 require separate and consecutive performance of the various guiding steps. Rather, such a construction is contrary to the teachings of the 505 patent. For example, the specification explicitly describes simultaneous performance of guiding steps two and three. 505 patent, col. 5, l. 54 to col. 6, l. 3. Moreover, simultaneous performance of the guiding steps is consistent with operating at a significant rate of speed, a stated object of the invention. 505 patent, col. 2, ll. 3-7. The prosecution history is also consistent with this claim construction. Hence, this court, like the district court as well, construes the guiding steps to include simultaneous performance.

FPS argues that, irrespective of whether claim 24 allows simultaneity, the method practiced by the Moba Omnia cannot infringe literally because it does not perform entirely at least one of the required guiding steps. This argument simply repackages FPSs argument for sequential performance of the guiding steps. FPSs argument focuses on distinctions between the Moba Omnia and the patentees preferred embodiment for the claim 24 method. This court has discredited an infringement analysis for method claims that examines distinct
ions between implementing apparatuses.Amstar Corp. v. Envirotech Corp.,730 F.2d 1476, 1482, 221 USPQ 649, 653 (Fed.Cir.1984) ([T]he law recognizes the irrelevance of apparatus distinctions in determining infringement of process claims.).

Like the device of Fig. 2, the Moba Omnia lifts eggs to an overhead conveyor for transport. To position the eggs for lifting, the Moba Omnia employs a continuously moving transport conveyor that slows without stopping as each egg passes under the overhead conveyor. In these actions, the Moba Omnia practices all three guiding steps. With a focus on the movement of the eggs (the subject matter of the method claim) in the Moba Omnia, rather than the movement of the Moba Omnia itself, each of these steps is evident. As required by the first guiding step of claim 24, the Moba Omnia moves a first egg to a holding station. The Moba Omnia then moves the first egg to a spaced-apart location, the second guiding step. Simultaneously, the Moba Omnia moves a second egg to the holding station to perform the third guiding step. The first and second eggs are then ready for simultaneous lifting. In sum, the record evidence provides no basis upon which a reasonable jury could find that the Moba Omnia does not perform the three guiding steps of the 505 patents claim 24.

The district court correctly construed the holding station of claim 24 of the 505 patent as a first location in space to which an egg is moved and at which the egg may maintain position until the egg is lifted simultaneously with an egg at a `spaced-apart location. Nonetheless, FPS argues that the district courts construction requires that an egg cease motion before the lift to the overhead conveyor. The claims simply do not require a specific temporal limitation associated with the term holding. Indeed the specification states that the holding station positions an egg relative to the overhead conveyor for pick-up to the overhead conveyor.See, e.g.,505 patent, col. 2, ll. 44-58, col. 6, ll. 4-8. The specification actually speaks of eggs that are held as they col. 5, ll. 2-6 (The disks each include a plurality of peripheral recesses which are disposed in horizontal alignment so as to receive and hold eggs advanced along the guide bars as they are transferred to the holding stations.). Moreover, the ordinary meaning of to hold is to keep in position, guide, control, or manage.The Oxford English Dictionary(2d ed. 1989). This meaning also imposes no requirement that an object remain stationary.

Moreover, as this court has repeatedly counseled, the best indicator of claim meaning is its usage in context as understood by one of skill in the art at the time of invention.Markman,52 F.3d at 986. In this instance, the context is the swift and safe movement of eggs. As indicated by the specification, the process holds the egg at the same time it moves the egg, thus achieving the dual goals of precision and speed. The process may hold and move an egg at the same time. In sum, the district court correctly construed the term holding. The term holding station also does not require lack of motion.

To show that the Moba Omnia does not include a holding station, FPS relies entirely upon evidence that eggs in the Moba Omnia do not stop before they are picked up. As described above, however, the claim does not require a stationary holding station. To satisfy the holding station requirement, the Moba Omnia needs only employ a first location in space to which an egg is moved and at which the egg may maintain position until the egg is lifted simultaneously with an egg at a `spaced-apart location, whether or not eggs stop before the pick up. The record shows that the Moba Omnia employs such a first location. In view of the undisputed record evidence, no reasonable jury could find that the Moba Omnia does not move an egg to a holding station as claimed.

In sum, the evidence of record consistent with the correct claim construction shows that the method performed by the Moba Omnia includes all three guiding steps and that the Omnia moves eggs to a holding station. Because no reasonable jury could find on the record evidence that the method performed by the Moba Omnia does not infringe literally and directly claim 24 of the 505 patent, the district court erred in not granting JMOL on that issue.

Turning to claim 28 of the 494 patent, the parties dispute the district courts construction of the limitation predetermined sequence and two limitations containing the phrase downwardly and away. Because construction of the first downwardly and away limitation disposes of the question of infringement, this court need not address the other limitations.

The first downwardly and away limitation recites:rotating the receiving means downwardly and away from said first conveyor means to urge the received eggs downwardly.The district court construed this claim language: [T]he receiving means*must be rotated downwardly (i.e. toward the ground) and be rotated away from the main egg-carrying conveyor from which the eggs are released. With some slight clarification, the district court construed this claim limitation correctly. The slight clarification notes that the limitation constrains the motion of the received eggs as well as the motion of the receiving means. Specifically, the first downwardly and away limitation also requires that the receiving means move the eggs downwardly.

The claim recites that the receiving means urge[s] the received eggs downwardly. The patent does not explicitly define urge. In one sense, to urge means simply to press or to push.See, e.g., The Oxford English Dictionary(2d ed. 1989). This meaning of urge, however, would place the preferred embodiment outside the claim scope.Vitronics,at 1583 (a claim interpretation that puts the preferred embodiment outside the claim is rarely, if ever, correct and would require a highly persuasive evidentiary support.). Moreover this definition of urge makes infringement depend on the downward force exerted on the eggs by the rotating receiving means. A receiving means, such as that shown in Fig. 4 of the 494 patent, may rotate downward slowly and support the received eggs against the force of gravity. In doing so, the downward rotation would exert an upward force on the received eggs, i.e., it would urge the received eggs upward rather than downward as claim 28 requires. The patent does not show, however, that the downward force is a defining limitation.

Another ordinary meaning of to urge avoids exclusion of the preferred embodiment from the claims. Specifically, to urge may mean [t]o cause to move, hasten, or gather speed.The Oxford English Dictionary(2d ed.1989). This definition receives support from the patent specification. The specification clarifies that to urge means broadly to move or to carry and that the receiving means may slow the motion of the eggs. For example, the patent specification notes that the receiving meansreduce[s]the speed at which the eggs fall andgently move[s]the eggs downwardly and outwardly away from carriage assemblies. 494 patent, col. 5, ll. 55-57 (emphases added);see also Id.col. 6, ll. 64-64, col. 7, ll. 1-3. Thus, in the context of this patent, this court employs the broader meaning of to urge, namely, to cause to move.

The Staalkat Selecta employs a brush belt to receive eggs, as shown below. Once the brush belt receives the eggs, it transports the eggs horizontally to a comb mechanism that lifts the eggs from within the bristles of the brush belt. The comb then guides the eggs downward to a second transport conveyor.


At trial, FPS presented substantial evidence that the brush belt of the Staalkat Selecta does not move the eggs downwardly as required by the literal language of claim 28. FPS also presented substantial evidence to support that the Staalkat Selecta does not infringe claim 28 under the doctrine of equivalents. For example, Dr. Kirk, an expert witness for FPS, testified that the Selectas brush belt does not guide eggs downwardly. Rather, the b
rush guides eggs over a linear path rather than a curved path. As a result, the eggs moved upward rather than downward relative to their initial position upon receipt in the brush belt. This evidence supports the jurys verdict of no infringement. Even applying the doctrine of equivalents, the Staalkat Selecta performs a different function in a different way to obtain a different result from the language of the claim limitation. Thus, substantial evidence supports the jurys finding that the Staalkat Selectas method does not satisfy the first downwardly and away limitation of claim 28, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Hence, this court affirms the district courts denial of JMOL. Because the Staalkat Selecta does not satisfy the first downwardly and away limitation, this court need not reach other potential grounds to support the jurys verdict.

The Patent Act imposes indirect infringement liability on a party who actively induces others to directly infringe a patent. 35 U.S.C. 271(b) (1994). Diamond appeals the district courts denial of its motion for JMOL that FPS indirectly infringes claim 24 of the 505 patent and claim 28 of the 494 patent. In reviewing the district courts denial of Diamonds JMOL motion, this court presumes that the jury resolved all factual disputes in favor of the prevailing party and leaves those findings undisturbed as long as substantial evidence supports them.SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp.,225 F.3d 1349, 1354, 55 USPQ2d 1927, 1930 (Fed.Cir.2000).

The district court denied Diamonds JMOL on inducement because the jury determined that none of the machines sold by FPS infringe any of the patents in suit.Moba,No. 95-CV-2631, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15483, at *43. Because this court upholds the verdict that claim 28 of the 494 patent is not directly infringed, the trial court correctly determined that FPS does not indirectly infringe that claim.Met-Coil Sys. Corp. v. Korners Unlimited, Inc.,803 F.2d 684, 687, 231 USPQ 474, 477 (Fed.Cir.1986) ([T]here can be no inducement of infringement without direct infringement by some party.). However, this court has held that the Moba Omnia method directly infringed claim 24 of the 505 patent. Therefore, the issue of infringement by FPS depends on whether FPS actively induce[d] infringement within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 271(b).

Although 271(b) does not use the word knowingly, this court has uniformly imposed a knowledge requirement.Water Tech. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd.,850 F.2d 660, 7 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed.Cir.1988);C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Advanced Card. Sys., Inc.911 F.2d 670, 15 USPQ2d 1540 (Fed.Cir.1990). This court defined the generally applicable intent standard inHewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,909 F.2d 1464, 1468-69, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528-29 (Fed. Cir.1990). InHewlett-Packard,this court held that proof of actual intent to cause the acts which constitute the infringement is a necessary prerequisite to finding active inducement under 271(b).Hewlett-Packard,909 F.2d at 1469. Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP), was the assignee of the LaBarre patent on aspects of X-Y plotter technology. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (B & L), manufactured and sold X-Y plotters and a variety of other electronic equipment through a division that it sold toAmetek, Inc. HP alleged that B & L induced infringement of the LaBarre patent by its sale toAmetek. This court found, however, that the sale did not evince an intent to induce infringement but, rather, merely an intent to sell at the highest price. This court particularly noted that B & L had no interest in, nor control over,Ameteks use of the purchased division. Implicit in this courts determination was thatAmetekcould have employed the purchased division in a wide range of non-infringing activity. Moreover, this court noted that the agreement to develop a non-infringing plotter established, if anything, B & Ls intent to avoid any inducement of infringement.

In this case, the only intent required of FPS is the intent to cause the acts that constitute infringement.Hewlett-Packard,909 F.2d at 1469. Although Diamond argues that the record shows that FPS sold its customers the Moba Omnia and trained them to use the infringing method, active inducement is nonetheless a factual inquiry. Accordingly, this court declines to make a determination that no reasonable jury could conclude that FPS did not intend that its customers perform acts that constitute infringement. Therefore, this court remands for further inquiry into whether FPS indirectly infringes claim 24 of the 505 patent.

The Patent Act erects a presumption of validity for an issued patent. 35 U.S.C. 282 (1994). Therefore, invalidity requires clear and convincing evidence.Id.; Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,212 F.3d 1272, 54 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed.Cir.2000). Because this court has determined that FPS may infringe claim 24 of the 505 patent, depending on resolution of the inducement issue, this court also addresses FPSs appeal of the jury verdict upholding the validity of that claim. FPS argues that the claim is invalid as anticipated, not enabled, and not adequately described.

A patent specification must contain an adequate written description. 35 U.S.C. 112, 1 (1994). Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement of 112, 1 is a question of fact that this court reviews for substantial evidence.Advanced Display Sys.,212 F.3d


We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, well assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Greiner Bio-One website. However, if you would like to, you can change your cookie settings at any time

Your leading global partner in the fields of biotechnology, diagnostics, medical devices, in vitro diagnostics as well as in the world of research.

Find out more about the most important milestones in this short video.

That is where our product solutions for preanalytics, research and biotechnology come in. Were here for you worldwide, right where you need us.

Our company Greiner Bio-One is a global player in the field of medical technology.

The Preanalytics business division manufactures pre-analytical products for the collection and processing of sample material (blood, urine and saliva) for analytical purposes.

Greiner Bio-One BioScience develops, produces and markets products for universities, research organisations, the pharmaceutical and diagnostic industries and biotechnology.

The Diagnostics division specialises in the development of new molecular-biological analysis methods based on DNA arrays.

The OEM division custom-produces a range of platforms made from plastic: from development and the production process to the finished product.

GeT deals with pre and postanalytical processes and offers increased security for patients, more efficient workflows, a higher level of standardisation, and transparency at all stages.

© 2018 Greiner Bio One International GmbH

274 F 3d 577 – Ef Cultural Travel Bv v Explorica Inc



United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Hon. Morris E. Lasker, Senior U.S. District Judge Anthony M. Feeherry, with whom James W. Nagle, R. David Hosp, and Goodwin Proctor LLP were on brief, for appellants.

Nathaniel H. Akerman, with whom Seyfarth Shaw was on brief, for appellees.

Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Explorica, Inc. (Explorica) and several of its employees challenge a preliminary injunction issued against them for alleged violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030.1We affirm the district courts conclusion that appellees will likely succeed on the merits of their CFAA claim, but rest on a narrower basis than the court below.

Explorica was formed in 2000 to compete in the field of global tours for high school students. Several of Exploricas employees formerly were employed by appellee EF, which has been in business for more than thirty-five years. EF and its partners and subsidiaries make up the worlds largest private student travel organization.

Shortly after the individual defendants left EF in the beginning of 2000, Explorica began competing in the teenage tour market. The companys vice president (and former vice president of information strategy at EF), Philip Gormley, envisioned that Explorica could gain a substantial advantage over all other student tour companies, and especially EF, by undercutting EFs already competitive prices on student tours. Gormley considered several ways to obtain and utilize EFs prices: by manually keying in the information from EFs brochures and other printed materials; by using a scanner to record that same information; or, by manually searching for each tour offered through EFs website. Ultimately, however, Gormley engaged Zefer, Exploricas Internet consultant, to design a computer program called a scraper to glean all of the necessary information from EFs website. Zefer designed the program in three days.

The scraper has been likened to a robot, a tool that is extensively used on the Internet. Robots are used to gather information for countless purposes, ranging from compiling results for search engines such asYahoo!to filtering for inappropriate content. The widespread deployment of robots enables global Internet users to find comprehensive information quickly and almost effortlessly.

Like a robot, the scraper sought information through the Internet. Unlike other robots, however, the scraper focused solely on EFs website, using information that other robots would not have. Specifically, Zefer utilized tour codes whose significance was not readily understandable to the public. With the tour codes, the scraper accessed EFs website repeatedly and easily obtained pricing information for those specific tours. The scraper sent more than 30,000 inquiries to EFs website and recorded the pricing information into a spreadsheet.2

Zefer ran the scraper program twice, first to retrieve the 2000 tour prices and then the 2001 prices. All told, the scraper downloaded 60,000 lines of data, the equivalent of eight telephone directories of information.3Once Zefer scraped all of the prices, it sent a spreadsheet containing EFs pricing information to Explorica, which then systematically undercut EFs prices.4Explorica thereafter printed its own brochures and began competing in EFs tour market.

The development and use of the scraper came to light about a year and a half later during state-court litigation regarding appellant Olssons departure from appellee EFICE. EF then filed this action, alleging violations of the CFAA; the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 101; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961; and various related state laws. It sought a preliminary injunction barring Explorica and Zefer from using the scraper program and demanded the return of all materials generated through use of the scraper.

On May 30, 2001, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against Explorica based on the CFAA, which criminally and civilly prohibits certain access to computers. See 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4). The court found that EF would likely prove that Explorica violated the CFAA when it used EFs website in a manner outside the reasonable expectations of both EF and its ordinary users. The court also concluded that EF could show that it suffered a loss, as required by the statute, consisting of reduced business, harm to its goodwill, and the cost of diagnostic measures it incurred to evaluate possible harm to EFs systems, although it could not show that Exploricas actions physically damaged its computers. In a supplemental opinion5the district court further articulated its reasonable expectations standard and explained that copyright, contractual and technical restraints sufficiently notified Explorica that its use of a scraper would be unauthorized and thus would violate the CFAA.

The district court first relied on EFs use of a copyright symbol on one of the pages of its website and a link directing users with questions to contact the company,6finding that such a clear statement should have dispelled any notion a reasonable person may have had that the presumption of open access applied to information on EFs website. The court next found that the manner by which Explorica accessed EFs website likely violated a confidentiality agreement between appellant Gormley and EF, because Gormley provided to Zefer technical instructions concerning the creation of the scraper. Finally, the district court noted without elaboration that the scraper bypassed technical restrictions embedded in the website to acquire the information. The court therefore let stand its earlier decision granting the preliminary injunction. Appellants contend that the district court erred in taking too narrow a view of what is authorized under the CFAA and similarly mistook the reach of the confidentiality agreement. Appellants also argue that the district court erred in finding that appellees suffered a loss, as defined by the CFAA, and that the preliminary injunction violates the First Amendment.

A district court may issue a preliminary injunction only upon considering (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) the balance of relevant impositions . . . ; and (4) the effect (if any) of the courts ruling on the public interest. Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc.,102 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 1996). Appellants challenge only the district courts finding that appellees are likely to succeed on the merits, and we thus confine our review to that factor. As in any other appeal, we review the merits of a preliminary injunction depending on the issue under consideration. Generally speaking, pure issues of law (e.g., the construction of a statute) are reviewed de novo, findings of fact for clear error, and judgment calls with considerable deference. . . . Langlois v. Abington Hous. Auth.,207 F.3d 43, 47 (1st Cir. 2000). Each of these is applicable here, where the district courts judgment relied on both its analysis of the CFAA and its assessment of the voluminous documentary evidence.

III. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Although appellees alleged violations of three provisions of the CFAA, the district court found that they were likely to succeed only under section 1030(a)(4).7That section provides

[Whoever] knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value . . . shall be punished.

Appellees allege that the appellants knowingly and with intent to defraud accessed the server hosting EFs website more than 30,000 times to obtain proprietary pricing and tour information, and confidential information about appellees technical abilities. At the heart of the parties dispute is whether appellants actions either were without authorization or exceed[ed] authorized access as defined by the CFAA.9We conclude that because of the broad confidentiality agreement appellants actions exceed[ed] authorized access, and so we do not reach the more general arguments made about statutory meaning, including whether use of a scraper alone renders access unauthorized.10

Congress defined exceeds authorized access, as accessing a computer with authorization and [using] such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter. 18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(6). EF is likely to prove such excessive access based on the confidentiality agreement between Gormley and EF. Pertinently, that agreement provides:

Employee agrees to maintain in strict confidence and not to disclose to any third party, either orally or in writing, any Confidential or Proprietary Information . . . and never to at any time (i) directly or indirectly publish, disseminate or otherwise disclose, deliver or make available to anybody any Confidential or Proprietary Information or (ii) use such Confidential or [P]roprietary Information for Employees own benefit or for the benefit of any other person or business entity other than EF.

As used in this Agreement, the term Confidential or Proprietary Information means (a) any trade or business secrets or confidential information of EF, whether or not reduced to writing . . . ; (b) any technical, business, or financial information, the use or disclosure of which might reasonably be construed to be contrary to the interests of EF.

The record contains at least two communications from Gormley to Zefer seeming to rely on information about EF to which he was privy only because of his employment there. First, in an email to Zefer employee Joseph Alt exploring the use of a scraper, Gormley wrote: [m]ight one of the team be able to write a program to automatically extract prices . . . ? I could work with him/her on the specification. Gormley also sent the following email to Zefer employee John Hawley:

Here is a link to the page where you can grab EFs prices. There are two important drop down menus on the right. . . . With the lowest one you select one of about 150 tours. * * * You then select your origingatewayfrom a list of about 100 domestic gateways (middle drop down menu). When you select your origingatewaya page with a couple of tables comes up. One table has 1999-2000 prices and the other has 2000-2001 prices. * * * On a high speed connection it is possible to move quickly from one price table to the next by hitting backspace and then the down arrow.

This documentary evidence points to Gormleys heavy involvement in the conception of the scraper program. Furthermore, the voluminous spreadsheet containing all of the scraped information includes the tour codes, which EF claims are proprietary information. Each page of the spreadsheet produced by Zefer includes the tour andgatewaycodes, the date of travel, and the price for the tour. An uninformed reader would regard the tour codes as nothing but gibberish.11Although the codes can be correlated to the actual tours and destination points, the codes standing alone need to be translated to be meaningful.

Explorica argues that none of the information Gormley provided Zefer was confidential and that the confidentiality agreement therefore is irrelevant.12The case on which they rely, Lanier Professional Services, Inc. v. Ricci,192 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1999), focused almost exclusively on an employees non-compete agreement. The opinion mentioned in passing that there was no actionable misuse of confidential information because the only evidence that the employee had taken protected information was a practically worthless affidavit from the employees successor. Id. at 5.

Here, on the other hand, there is ample evidence that Gormley provided Explorica proprietary information about the structure of the website and the tour codes. To be sure, gathering manually the various codes through repeated searching and deciphering of the URLs13theoretically may be possible. Practically speaking, however, if proven, Exploricas wholesale use of EFs travel codes to facilitate gathering EFs prices from its website reeks of use–and, indeed, abuse–of proprietary information that goes beyond any authorized use of EFs website.14

Gormley voluntarily entered a broad confidentiality agreement prohibiting his disclosure of any information which might reasonably be construed to be contrary to the interests of EF.15Appellants would face an uphill battle trying to argue that it was not against EFs interests for appellants to use the tour codes to mine EFs pricing data. See Anthonys Pier Four, Inc. v. HBC Assoc., 411 Mass. 451, 471, 583 N.E.2d 806, 820 (1991) (imposing a duty of good faith and fair dealing in all contracts under Massachusetts law). If EFs allegations are proven, it will likely prove that whatever authorization Explorica had to navigate around EFs site (even in a competitive vein), it exceeded that authorization by providing proprietary information and know-how to Zefer to create the scraper.16Accordingly, the district courts finding that Explorica likely violated the CFAA was not clearly erroneous.

B. Damage or Loss under section 1030(g)

Appellants also challenge the district courts finding that the appellees would likely prove they met the CFAAs damage or loss requirements. Under the CFAA, EF may maintain a private cause of action if it suffered damage or loss. 18 U.S.C. 1030(g). Damage is defined as any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information that . . . causes loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value during any 1-year period to one or more individuals . . . . 18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(8). Loss is not defined.

The district court held that although EF could not show any damage it would likely be able to show loss under the statute. It reasoned that a general understanding of the word loss would fairly encompass a loss of business, goodwill, and the cost of diagnostic measures that EF took after it learned of Exploricas access to its website.17Appellants respond that such diagnostic measures cannot be included in the $5,000 threshold because their actions neither caused any physical damage nor placed any stress on EFs website.

Few courts have endeavored to resolve the contours of damage and loss under the CFAA. See, e.g., Shaw v. Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., 91 F. Supp. 2d 926 (E.D. Tex. 1999) (noting the paucity of decisions construing the Act). Two district courts that have addressed the issue have found that expenses such as those borne by EF do fall under the statute. In Shurgard Storage Center v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (W.D. Wa. 2000), the district court found that the need to assess whether a defendants actions compromised the plaintiffs computers was compensable under the CFAA because the computers integrity was called into question. The court based its finding on the legislative history of the 1996 amendments to the CFAA:

The 1994 Amendment required both damage and loss, but it is not always clear what constitutes damage. For example, intruders often alter existing log-on programs so that user passwords are copied to a file which the hackers can retrieve later. After retrieving the newly created password file, the intruder restores the altered log-on file to its original condition. Arguably, in such a situation, neither the computer nor its information is damaged. Nonetheless, this conduct allows the intruder to accumulate valid user passwords to the system, requires all system users to change their passwords, and requires the system administrator to devote resources to re-securing the system. Thus, althou
gh there is arguably no damage, the victim does suffer loss. If the loss to the victim meets the required monetary threshold, the conduct should be criminal, and the victim should be entitled to relief.

S. Rep. No. 104-357, at 11 (1996) (quoted in Shurgard, 119 F. Supp. 2d at 1126). Another district court held that this legislative history makes clear that Congress intended the term loss to target remedial expenses borne by victims that could not properly be considered direct damage caused by a computer hacker. In re Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litig., 154 F. Supp. 2d 497, 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

We agree with this construction of the CFAA. In the absence of a statutory definition for loss, we apply the well-known rule of assigning undefined words their normal, everyday meaning. See Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail v. Rouse,129 F.3d 649, 653-54 (1st Cir. 1997). The word loss means detriment, disadvantage, or deprivation from failure to keep, have or get. TheRandom HouseDictionary of the English Language 1137 (2d ed. 1983). Appellees unquestionably suffered a detriment and a disadvantage by having to expend substantial sums to assess the extent, if any, of the physical damage to their website caused by appellants intrusion. That the physical components were not damaged is fortunate, but it does not lessen the loss represented by consultant fees. Congresss use of the disjunctive, damage or loss, confirms that it anticipated recovery in cases involving other than purely physical damage. But see In reIntuitPrivacy Litig., 138 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1281 (C.D. Ca. 2001) (loss means irreparable damage and any other interpretation would render the term damage superfluous); , Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238, 252 n.12 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (lost business or goodwill could not constitute loss absent the impairment or unavailability of data or systems). To parse the words in any other way would not only impair Congresss intended scope of the Act, but would also serve to reward sophisticated intruders. As we move into an increasingly electronic world, the instances of physical damage will likely be fewer while the value to the victim of what has been stolen and the victims costs in shoring up its security features undoubtedly will loom ever-larger. If we were to restrict the statute as appellants urge, we would flout Congresss intent by effectively permitting the CFAA to languish in the twentieth century, as violators of the Act move into the twenty-first century and beyond.

We do not hold, however, that any loss is compensable. The CFAA provides recovery for damage only if it results in a loss of at least $5,000. We agree with the court in In re Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), that Congress could not have intended other types of loss to support recovery unless that threshold were met. Indeed, the Senate Report explicitly states that if the loss to the victim meets the required monetary threshold, the victim is entitled to relief under the CFAA. S. Rep. 104-357, at 11. We therefore conclude that expenses of at least $5,000 resulting from a partys intrusion are losses for purposes of the damage or loss requirement of the CFAA.

For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the district court that appellees will likely succeed on the merits of their CFAA claim under 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4). Accordingly, the preliminary injunction was properly ordered.

The individual defendants-appellants are Olle Olsson, Peter Nilsson, Philip Gormley, Alexandra Bernadotte, Anders Erikkson, Deborah Johnson, and Stefan Nilsson. They are all former employees of plaintiffs-appellees, EF Cultural Tours BV, EF Institute for Cultural Exchange, Inc. (EFICE), EF Cultural Services BV, and Go Ahead Vacations, Inc. The appellees are collectively referred to as EF.

The injunction was also issued against a second company, Zefer Corporation (Zefer), which also appealed. After briefing was completed, Zefer filed for bankruptcy. We granted a joint motion to sever Zefers appeal, which has been stayed.

John Hawley, one of Zefers senior technical associates, explained the technical progression of the scraper in an affidavit:

[a.] Open an Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet initially contains EFToursgatewayand destination city codes, which are available on the EFTours web site.

[b.] Identify the firstgatewayand destination city codes [on the] Excel spreadsheet.

[c.] Create a [website address] request for the EFTours tour prices page based on a combination ofgatewayand destination city. Example: show me all the prices for a London trip leaving JFK.

[d.] View the requested web page which is retained in the random access memory of the requesting computer in the form of HTML [computer language] code. * * *

[e.] Search the HTML for the tour prices for each season, year, etc.

[f.] Store the prices into the Excel spreadsheet.

[g.] Identify the nextgatewayand city codes in the spreadsheet.

[8.] Repeat steps 3-7 for allgatewayand destination city combinations.

Appellants dispute the relevance of the size of the printed data, arguing that 60,000 printed lines, while voluminous on paper, is not a large amount of data for a computer to store. This is a distinction without a difference. The fact is that appellants utilized the scraper program to download EFs pricing data. In June 2000, EFs website listed 154,293 prices for various tours.

Explorica later varied its prices slightly to mask its across-the-board discount of EFs prices.

Zefer, Exploricas consultant, had objected to the initial decision on the ground that it could face liability under the preliminary injunction even though it had not had an opportunity to respond to EFs preliminary injunction motion. The district court allowed all of the parties to submit supplemental briefs and issued a further decision on July 2, 2001.

Copyright 2000 EF Cultural Travel BV

EF Educational Tours is a member of the EF group of companies.

Appellees have not challenged the district courts finding that they were unlikely to succeed on claims brought under 18 U.S.C. 1030(5)(C) and(6)(A).

Although the CFAA is primarily a criminal statute, under 1030(g), any person who suffers damage or loss . . . may maintain a civil action . . . for compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief.

At oral argument, appellants contended that they had no intent to defraud as defined by the CFAA. That argument was not raised in the briefs and thus has been waived. See Garcia-Ayala v. Parenterals, Inc.,212 F.3d 638, 645 (1st Cir. 2000) (failure to brief an argument constitutes waiver despite attempt to raise the argument at oral argument). Likewise, at oral argument Explorica attempted to adopt appellant Zefers argument that the preliminary injunction violates the First Amendment. The lateness of Exploricas attempt renders it fruitless. See id.

Congress did not define the phrase without authorization, perhaps assuming that the words speak for themselves. The meaning, however, has proven to be elusive. The district court applied what it termed the default rule that conduct is without authorization only if it is not in line with the reasonable expectations of the website owner and its users. Appellants argue that this is an overly broad reading that restricts access and is at odds with the Internets intended purpose of providing the open and free exchange of information. They urge us to adopt instead the Second Circuits reasoning that computer use is without authorization only if the use is not in any way related to [its] intended function, United States v. Morris,928 F.2d 504, 510 (2d Cir. 1991). Appellees contend that the result would be the same under either test, but we need not resolve this dispute because we affirm the courts ruling based on the exceeds authorized access prong of 1030(a)(4).

An example of the website address including the tour information is Gate=GTF&TourID=LPM. In this address, the proprietary codes are GTF and LPM.

The Agreement provides that confidential informatio
n does not include anything that is or becomes generally known within EFs industry.

URL is the acronym for uniform resource locator, the technical name for the web address typed in by an Internet user. For example, EFs URL is

Among the several emails in the record is one from Zefer employee Joseph Alt to the Explorica team at Zefer:

Below is the information needed to log into EFs site as a tour leader. Please use this to gather competitor information from both a business and experience design perspective. We may also be able to glean knowledge of their technical abilities. As with all of our information, this is extremely confidential. Please do not share it with anyone.

Ironically, appellant Olsson countersigned Gormleys confidentiality agreement as the representative of EF.

EF also claims that Explorica skirted the websites technical restraints. To learn about a specific tour, a user must navigate through several different web pages by clicking on various drop-down menus and choosing the desired departure location, date, tour destination, tour length, and price range. The district court found that the scraper circumvented the technical restraints by operating at a warp speed that the website was not normally intended to accommodate. We need not reach the argument that this alone was a violation of the CFAA, however, because the apparent transfer of information in violation of the Confidentiality Agreement furnishes a sufficient basis for injunctive relief.

Likewise, we express no opinion on the district courts ruling that EFs copyright notice served as a clear statement [that] should have dispelled any notion a reasonable person may have had the presumption of open access to EFs website.

It is undisputed that appellees paid $20,944.92 to assess whether their website had been compromised. Appellees also claim costs exceeding $40,000 that they will incur to remedy and secure their website and computer. We need not consider whether these expenses constitute loss because the initial $20,944.92 greatly exceeds the threshold.

Collectible Keychains

to get e-mail alerts and updates on your eBay Feed.

UnfollowKeychainsto stop getting updates on your eBay Feed.

Youll receive email and Feed alerts when new items arrive.

Congo, Democratic Republic of the – COD

Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) – FLK

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – VCT

Mens 3D Hollow Zinc Alloy Car Logo keychain keyring Pendant Holder key chain New

Anime Fate Stay Night King Arthur Saber Sword Keychain Key Chain Cosplay Decor

1pc Creative Business Man Key Chain Ring Keychain Keyring Key Fob Metal Gift Car

NEW Fashion Star Wars Millennium Falcon Metal Key Ring Keychain Gift Silver

NEW Fashion Star Wars Millennium Falcon Metal Key Ring Keychain Gift Silver

4x4cm Blue Cute Stitch Figure key Chain Pendant Cartoon Toy Gift Collection Xmas

4x4cm Blue Cute Stitch Figure key Chain Pendant Cartoon Toy Gift Collection Xmas

Creative Alloy Marvel The Avengers Thor Thors Hammer Metal Keyring Keychain

3D Star Wars Robot R2D2 Pendants keychain Metal Keyring Men Boys Gift Star Wars

Star Wars The Force Awakens BB8 R2D2 Droid Robot Key Action Figure stormtrooper

Ganesha keychain, sacred elephant, lord of success, Buddha key ring key holder

l Keychain Plier Screwdriver Folding Multitool Pocket Set

1 PC Creative Avengers Superhero Key Chain Cartoon Key Ring Holiday Party Gift

Star Wars Keychains Yoda Keychain Metal Sword Key Chains

s Battlegrounds PUBG Kar98K Metal Model Gun Keychain Key Ring Red

Mini Silicone Back To The Future II Glow In The Dark Air Mag Keychain Kids

Mini Creative Key Chain Ring Keyring Metal Keychain Gift Tool camera

Wonder Woman Shield Pewter Key Ring Key Chain Wonder Woman Justice League Movie

Guardian Angel Pendant Key Chain ,Jewelry Key Rings Holder Gift for Women Men

Guardian Angel Pendant Key Chain ,Jewelry Key Rings Holder Gift for Women Men

Keychain Chain Gold Silver Key Ring Keyring BTC Metal Physical Bitcoin W

BUY 1 GET 1 FREE Silica gel cartoon cute animal keyring creative car key chain

Superhero Batman Keychain Men Key Chain Key Ring Holder Jewelry Gift Souvenirs

Hot Sale Vintage Thor Hammer Keychains Avengers Men Key Rings Movie Key Holder

New Cute Motorcycle Key Ring Chain Motor Silver Keychain Lover Key Chain

Pickle Rick and Morty Keychain Keyring Pendants Cosplay Collect PVC Keychains

Personalized, Initial, Silver Plated, keychain, Initial,pinky Promise Gift,

Key-Bak MID6 Retractable Key Belt Clip Standard Duty – 36 Polyester / 6 oz

10pcs Mens Creative Alloy Metal Keyfob Gift Car Keyring Keychain Key Chain Ring

Mini Portable Carryable Metal Cigarette Pocket Ashtray Key Chain

Mini Portable Carryable Metal Cigarette Pocket Ashtray Key Chain

50PCS Silver Steel Key Rings Chains Split Ring Hoop Metal Loop Accessories 20mm

Silver Star Wars Force Awakens BB8 Robot Figure Metal Keyfob Keyring Keychain

Silver Star Wars Force Awakens BB8 Robot Figure Metal Keyfob Keyring Keychain

Fallout 4 Nuka Cola Cap Creative Metal Keyfob Keyring Keychain Key Chain Ring

25LBS BARBELL WEIGHT Charm Chain Keychain *Fitness Weightlifting Gym CROSSFIT

Keychain Sparco Blue Embroidered Fabric Strap Keyring Tag Bike Car Free Shipping

Horror Movie Curse of Chucky Chucky Mask 10cm/4 Metal Key Ring Chain In Box

Antique Silver I want to believe UFO Keychain ET Alien Keyring Spaceship key

SUZUKI Keychain Embroidered Fabric Strap Keyring Car Bike Racing Free Shipping

Evil Eye Keychain Hamsa Fatima Hand Protection Charm Key Chain Good Luck Amulet

Key-Bak SUPER48 Retractable Key Holder Leather Belt Loop Heavy Duty 48 Kevlar

ME vs ME DUMBBELL WEIGHT Fitness Weightlifting Gym Keychain Keyring New

YAMAHA Keychain Embroidered Fabric Keyring Motorcycle Bike Gift Free Shipping


DC Comic Justice League Super Heros Aquaman Trident Model Keychain Key Ring Gift


Best friend long distance keychainlong distance boyfriend gift friendship key

New Lanyard NFL Keys USA Sport ID Badge Holders For Phones Neck Strap Keychains

Hot Cartoon Stitch PVC Key Chains Metal Key Ring Party Gifts Wholesale

Antique Silver Aum Ohm Charms Yoga OM Pendant Charm Keychain Key Chain Key Rings

one punch man Genos rubber key chain doll dual side keychains new

Supreme Keychain Embroidered Fabric Screen Keyring Holder Car Bike Free Shipping

Keychain Embroidered Fabric Strap Keying Racing Bike For DAINESE Free Shipping

1PC Earth Airplane Keychains No Matter Where Pendant Best Friend Jewelry Diy

eBay determines this price through a machine learned model of the products sale prices within the last 90 days.

eBay determines trending price through a machine learned model of the products sale prices within the last 90 days. New refers to a brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item, and Used refers to an item that has been used previously.

Copyright © 1995-2018 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved.AccessibilityUser AgreementPrivacyCookiesandAdChoice

Norton Secured – powered by Verisign

This page was last updated: Jan-23 09:21. Number of bids and bid amounts may be slightly out of date. See each listing for international shipping options and costs.


Do you have a question? Or do you need help with your order?

i3D.nets managed hosting services are suitable for enterprise customers demanding the highest levels of performance, security and availability of their business-critical applications and data.

Red Cloud is i3D.nets enterprise-level cloud solution. Thanks to our global network and 16 data center locations worldwide, Red Cloud is extremely suitable for global cloud infrastructures. manages a 793 Gbit/s global IPv4/IPv6 network (AS49544) with over 110,710 KM of optical fiber. This network is present in 24 PoPs worldwide from where we offer P2P IP transit.

Sales:Support:US:+1 800 482 6910NL:+31 10 89 00 070DE:+49 69 2573 787 09Live chat3,4092,189210546

We are experts in performance hosting. is a managed hosting provider founded in 2004 and now operates 10,500 servers in 24 ISO27001 certified data centers worldwide. We provide 24/7 support and offercloud serversco-locationdedicated server hostinggame serversweb hostingand specialty solutions such as clean-IP and anti-DDOS,MPLSandIP Transit. excels in the gaming niche market hosting tens of millions of players for game publishers on the Microsoft Xbox network and Sony PlayStation Network. owns and operates over 10,500serversat six continents around the world: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, London, Frankfurt, Warsaw, Moscow, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Washington DC, Miami, So Paulo, Johannesburg, Dubai, Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong, Singapore and Sydney. We operate from our own 36,000 ft² data center in the Netherlands. operates a793 Gigabittransatlanticnetwork.

The global network provides a scalable platform for a flexible roll-out of our services, allowing us to rapidly increase capacity forcolocation racksdedicated serverscloud instancesandweb hosting. We are experts in scaling out capacity on a global scale.

Our scalable services are supported by 24×7 support and our software to manage and monitor capacity and performance. offers a SLA on scalability, uptime and performance. Our datacenters are ISO/IEC 27001 and CDSA (Content Protection & Security) certified. connects Africa to online gaming, emerging market opens to game publishersAngonix, Angolas largest Internet Exchange Point (IXP), today welcomed as its first foreign peering customer. is a managed hosting provider specializing in online gaming that hosts tens of millions of players for game publishers on the Microsoft Xbox and Sony PlayStation networks. joins 17 other companies at Angonix, Africas third largest IXP.$100 billion global marketThis year, global revenues in the games market including Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) games that support thousands of players at a time playing over the Internet will total $109 billion, a growth of 56% over the past five years (Newzoo). Accounting for the majority of the online gaming market, MMOs are expected to have…Read more

20 Dec Christmas and New Year opening hours

18 Oct nominated for FD gazellen awards…

03 Aug 2017-RFC 8195 – Use of Large BGP Communities

15 Jun selects Juniper Networks Software…

04 May introduces the digital Holland…

25 Apr 2017-DHPA Inspirational session at Circle…

27 Mar appoints Emile Schouwstra as Chief…

citbv main

Creative Imaging Technologies BV (CiT) is a parts distributor of imaging materials and solutions for the laser & copier

Our customers are professional recyclers that offer green office supplies alternatives. We avoid supporting products that infringe on OEM patents or products that are one to one copies of the original, therefore we are big supporters of cartridge recycling, we support green!

To make this possible, we offer a wide range of materials to make cartridge and copier recycling possible!

A quick download is also available here, 125pages of imaging materials for reuse:

REACHWe are happy to share with you all our products comply to REACH. By 2018 all imports from outside EU need to comply to the REACH regulation. This requires strict monitoring of registered ingredients, checking the MSDS sheets and issuing safety data sheets to our EU customers.How do we do this?We are located in The Netherlands, hosting the 2nd largest port of the world: Rotterdam. Shipments from here are possible to allover Europe, including Russia, East Europe, Israel, Turkey and North & South Africa.We ship any dimension, bulk shipments to FCL and small packages.Our technical experience in this field and our network of exclusive manufacturers and partners are key to success why recyclers do business with us. We seldom switch our suppliers, to enable stability and continuity. We support recycling solutions, we oppose patent infringing new cartridges or fakes.We love the techtalk and work in OEM projects for special imaging needs. We love new developments and innovative solutions. We also love clever IT, hence we use Google®Apps for Business and Microsoft® Exchange Server and Navision®We particular concentrate on brands suchKyocera®andOKI®and to a wider range also onas Canon®, Brother®, Dell®, Epson®, Lexmark®, Minolta®, Olivetti®, Tally®, UTAX®, Triump®Adler®,Samsung®, QMS® & Xerox®.We supply many large recyclers, belonging to the top of the world and a wide group of specialty recyclers, often much smaller.PartnersWe can not be innovative without strong technical partners from Europe, Japan and Korea.We are partner of SINDOH® in toners, OPCs and carriers, providing OEM quality from an OEM playerWe are partner of OHSUNG® developer rollers and PCRs, opening niche & profitable marketsWe are partner of FREESET® chips and chip resetters, offering more than 1000 types of chips and patented chip resets. We produce chips ourselves too!We design and produce our own plastics.We offer the most comprehensive range of carriers and developers from Japan and KoreaWe offer packages of parts, so offering you a one stop shop of materials for recycling.

Contact?The most convenient is an email to info at m. We love Google Apps,Skype, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.The best way is an Email or a Telephone call at +31 514 581400.We have 5 lines open under this telephone number!CompanyThe name CiT, Creative Imaging Technologies is a combination ofCreativein terms of networking, finding fit to purpose solutions and deal with high fluctuation of new models

Imagingas laser imaging is the leading print technology in the world today

Technologiesas printing solutions become more technologically advancedCit was founded in 2005. Its aim is to provide solutions for recyclers in a competitive and challenging market place. The increasing amountof models and supplies, the increase of technologies and complexity requires solution providers with focus. Cit relies on strong and reliable partners that finance, stock and provide innovative products, often not mainstream products. Within our offer of products we focus on upcoming brands, niche products, color products and solutions that trigger the power of this creative industry: Creative Imaging Technologies.

Creative Imaging technologies BV or Cit was founded in 2005. Cits founder and owner is Thijs Tuinstra (Mr.)About the founder. Thijs Tuinstra (1967) achieved his Master in Chemistry at the Groningen University and followed the MBA programme for Environmental Consultancy at the Twente Technical University. He was active in chemical research labs in the US and The Netherlands, after on in business consultancy and in cooporate management for more than 10 years. During 2000-2005 he build his imaging experience in several management positions at the Turbon Group, worlds largest aftermarket player, at that time located in The Netherlands. His management skills involved fields R&D, QC, Procurement and Product management. One of his achievements with Turbon was to introduce chemical toners – first to market – and the introduction of highly profitable niche products. Since 2005 he founded Creative Imaging Technologies BV, following up the trend set in with Turbon: to provide solutions/parts for niche and upcomming brands.

C801 – C821 – C822 – C831 – C841 – Executive Series – TK5140 – TK5150 – C301 – C310 – C510 – C610 – C710 – C810 – C910 – ES series – TK1100 – TK1130 – TK1140 – C920 chip – developer roller – TK1100 – TK1103 – Kyocera

– C110 – B2500 – Dell 7330 – chipreset – chips – Brother

® IRC2880 – B411 – B431 – RFID chip – FREESET

® – TK1130 – TK6305 – waste bottle – TK540 – TK550 – TK560 – TK570 – TK580 – TK590 – HL4040 – HL3040 – HL4150 – reset levers – covers – TN135 – TN230 – TN320 – TN325 – TN328 – Ricoh

® SP3400 – SP3500 – W840 – W850 – X8

60 – Tally® T9050 – colortoner – toner – whitetoner – white toner – blanco toner – ES9410WT – ES7411WT – C711WT – C710WT – Toner biely – eredeti fehr – bialy – weiß Toner – weissen Toner – bijele tonera – – – toner blanc – – fehr festk – toner branco – X264 – OPC – Kyocera® chips – TN2000 – DR2000 – DR2200 – DR3300 – DR320 – DR130 – DR230 – CLP300 OPC – CLP310 OPC – CLP320 OPC – TK130 – M2000 – TK150 – TK160 – TK170 – M2300 – M2400 – Olivetti® P226 – UTAX® – TRIUMP ADLER® – Epson® C1700 – Dell®

1250 – T654 – ML4550 – ML1610 – Dell

® 1600W – C1600 – Phaser 6121 – Xerox

® Phaser 5500 – Phaser 5550 – SCX6345 – SCX6555 – WC4150 – WorkCentre 4250

Sign inRecent Site ActivityReport AbusePrint PagePowered ByGoogle Sites

Binkies 3D

Improve customer experience and conversion rates, using our zero-effort

Curious what 3D could look like on your site?

Curious what 3D could look like on your site?

no app installation or plugin required

solution. Our developers will design and code exactly what you want!

, with small file sizes (less than 1.5MB)

Compatible with GTM, Tealium and other tag managers

High quality, accurate 3D models with mesmerizing reflections and lighting effects

Over 1500 products available covering

Their interactive models are of great quality, are delivered effortlessly right on our website and on time for important product launches.

All of these are important points for us in selecting Binkies 3D over others as our preferred 3D supplier!David Fišer

Online Experiences & Sales ManagerVodafone Czech Republic

Their solution is really easy to implement, they will help you in any way they can during the process and the most important part our customers really like it!Hanno Ladvas

Digital Channels Product ManangerTele2 Estonia

In an online environment, it can be difficult to give customers a lifelike experience of what our devices look like. Binkies has really helped let customers engage and interact with the phones, leading to better dwell time on site, enhanced customer experience and increased conversion.

Digital Commerce ManagerThree Ireland

We want our customers to have a deeper, richer experience and 3D fits into that model seamlessly. The amazing results weve seen clearly demonstrate that our customers love it too!

Head of User Experience, Design & CopyO2 (Telefonica UK)

About Skeye

Skeye B.V. was founded in 2013 to provide the international market with services using unmanned aircraft. In 2016 the company merged with Skycap to become the European leading provider of geographic data acquisition using unmanned aircraft and a top 3 provider of unmanned aerial inspections.

The company is headquartered in the Netherlands and operates locally from our offices in the United Kingdom and Germany.

Skeye now bundles extensive knowledge and experience in geodesy, topographic surveying, inspections, aerial imagery and 3D visualization into one company. The team consists of over 15 full time professionals, several freelance operators and operates a large fleet of fixed wing and multirotor UAVs.

Skeye differentiates itself by taking operations with unmanned aircraft very serious. Our clients require a reliable and professional supplier for high quality inspections, aerial surveys and aerial imagery. By taking quality and safety seriously by engaging with our client and local aviation authorities Skeye ensures a suitable and safe concept of operations for any mission. In the United Kingdom Skeye operates under a Permit for Aerial Work as issued by the CAA and in the Netherlands Skeye has the full ROC permit.

All projects are carried out according to our ISO 9001 and ISO 18001 (OSHAS) procedures. Skeye holds an ISO 9001 certification as well as the Dutch Safety Management Accreditation VCA.

Skeyes Quality, Health and Safety policy is available upon request.

Equally important are if the dedicated professional teams that carries out these projects do so in a safe, efficient and passionate manner. The combination of of these elements results in our quality!

Over the past years Skeye has executed a large number of projects across five continents. Specialist projects where flown in the following countries: United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, France, Norway, Croatia, United Arab Emirates, Papua New Guinea, Nigeria, Angola, South Africa, Malawi, Namibia, Uganda, Sierra Leone, India, Borneo and the USA.

Inspection of one of worlds largest FPSOs offshore Angola.

High resolution 3D mesh of the city centre of Basingstoke in The United Kingdom

3D Keyring with BV leather keychain Yeezy Boost 350 V2 WHITE

3D Keyring with BV leather keychain Yeezy Boost 350 V2 Cream White

3D Keyring with BV leather keychain Yeezy Boost 350 V2 Zebra

3D Keyring with BV leather keychain Yeezy Boost 350 V2 PURE WHITE

3D Keyring with BV leather keychain Yeezy Boost 350 V2 WHEAT

3D Keyring with BV leather keychain Yeezy Boost 350 V2 BRED

3D Keyring with BV leather keychain Yeezy Boost 350 V2 WHITE

3D Keyring with BV leather keychain Yeezy Boost 350 V2 WHITE

cmautoparts has no other items for sale.

Please enter a quantity of $qty_dummy$ or less

Purchases are limited to $qty_dummy$ per buyer

Choose quantity that is less than $qty_dummy1$ or equal to $qty_dummy$

You can only choose quantity that is equal to $qty_dummy$

Recent sales price provided by the seller

AU Post Economy Air : untracked-signature (3 to 10 business days)

See details about international shipping here.

help icon for Shipping – opens a layer

may be subject to customs processing depending on the items declared value.

set the items declared value and must comply with customs declaration laws.

may be subject to additional charges for customs clearance.

Visit eBays page oninternational trade.

help icon for Shipping – opens a layer

This amount includes applicable customs duties, taxes, brokerage and other fees. This amount is subject to change until you make payment. For additional information, see the Global Shipping Programterms and conditions

This amount includes applicable customs duties, taxes, brokerage and other fees. This amount is subject to change until you make payment. If you reside in an EU member state besides UK, import VAT on this purchase is not recoverable. For additional information, see the Global Shipping Programterms and conditions

No additional import charges on delivery

Seller ships within 1 day afterreceiving cleared payment

help icon for Estimated delivery date – opens a layer

include sellers handling time, origin ZIP Code, destination ZIP Code and time of acceptance and will depend on shipping service selected and receipt ofcleared payment

. Delivery times may vary, especially during peak periods.

Please note the delivery estimate is

Any international shipping and import charges are paid in part to Pitney Bowes Inc.Learn More

International shipping and import charges paid to Pitney Bowes Inc.Learn More

Any international shipping and import charges are paid in part to Pitney Bowes Inc.Learn More

International shipping paid to Pitney Bowes Inc.Learn More

Any international shipping is paid in part to Pitney Bowes Inc.Learn More

30 days returns, buyer pays return shipping

Covered by eBay Money Back Guarantee

Get the item you ordered or get your money back.

Covers your purchase price and original shipping.

Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing.

A brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item (including handmade items). See the sellers

listing for full details.See all condition definitions

Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing.

, but the seller has not specified shipping ntact the seller

and request a shipping method to your location.

Shipping cost cannot be calculated. Please enter a valid ZIP Code.

No additional import charges at delivery!

This item will be shipped through the Global Shipping Program and includes international tracking.Learn more

There are 2 items available. Please enter a number less than or equal to 2.

Please enter 5 or 9 numbers for the ZIP Code.

AU Post Economy Air : untracked-signature (3 to 10 business days)

Seller ships within 1 day afterreceiving cleared payment

include sellers handling time, origin ZIP Code, destination ZIP Code and time of acceptance and will depend on shipping service selected and receipt ofcleared payment

. Delivery times may vary, especially during peak periods.

Will usually ship within 1 business day ofreceiving cleared payment

After receiving the item, contact seller within

Immediate payment required for this item

Immediate payment of AU $34.15 is required.

Yeezy Boost 350 7 Athletic Shoes for Men,

Yeezy Boost 350 Skateboarding Athletic Shoes for Men,

Nike Yeezy Boost 350 Mens Athletic Shoes,

Yeezy Boost 350 Striped Athletic Shoes for Men,

Yeezy Boost 350 Solid Athletic Shoes for Men

Copyright © 1995-2018 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved.AccessibilityUser AgreementPrivacyCookiesandAdChoice

Norton Secured – powered by Verisign